Previous Tory voters

fancythat

I was answering your first post.
Now see you have written a 2nd.

I apologise again for misreading...

So you would cut spending on the NHS, pensions and other benefits and Lord knows what else by 10% fancythat? And you think that would make no difference to the way people live?

How about, for a start, getting rid of the subsidising of food and drink in Parliament? That’s an utter disgrace when people can’t afford basic food.

DAR There is absolutely nothing wrong with people swopping cash for more time off - and I never said there was, in fact my own DD does it,

What i was pointing out is that tax take from increasing higher rates might be lower than expected because of people doing that. On the other hand it could also lead to people not going for higher managerial posts to the disadvantage to their employer, who is unable to maintain the quality and skills of the higher echelons in the company.

DD has certaainly been doing the calculations and deciding at what point her income gain after tax, from further promotion is not worth the extra work and responsibility entailed in earning it.

M0nica

DAR There is absolutely nothing wrong with people swopping cash for more time off - and I never said there was, in fact my own DD does it,

What i was pointing out is that tax take from increasing higher rates might be lower than expected because of people doing that. On the other hand it could also lead to people not going for higher managerial posts to the disadvantage to their employer, who is unable to maintain the quality and skills of the higher echelons in the company.

DD has certaainly been doing the calculations and deciding at what point her income gain after tax, from further promotion is not worth the extra work and responsibility entailed in earning it.

So, if people reduce the number of hours that they work then surely their employers would need another worker?

Presunably, but most companies, or rather DD's limit cash for leave to one week a year, and when they are at work they work their socks off and she often works late.

She is a management consultant and I think the company hires the best, eases out anyone who is considered not to have made the grade, makes working for the company pleasant and lucrative - and then works them all very hard.

Dinahmo So, if people reduce the number of hours that they work then surely their employers would need another worker?

Logically I'd assume the same. Room to move people up, hire more people. When workers, here, need time away, more workers are hired.

Saving extra in pension pots whilst earning more and not paying extra in taxes is a huge bonus for retirement, especially as it seems obvious full retirement age needs to become older soon.

Our children like any chance to enhance pensions to the future. Added time off is also wonderful in their books.

M0nica

DAR There is absolutely nothing wrong with people swopping cash for more time off - and I never said there was, in fact my own DD does it,

What i was pointing out is that tax take from increasing higher rates might be lower than expected because of people doing that. On the other hand it could also lead to people not going for higher managerial posts to the disadvantage to their employer, who is unable to maintain the quality and skills of the higher echelons in the company.

DD has certaainly been doing the calculations and deciding at what point her income gain after tax, from further promotion is not worth the extra work and responsibility entailed in earning it.

Thank you MOnica. That does make more sense.

GrannyRose15

dayvidg

I have often voted Conservative, though also UKIP, Lib Dem and Green in recent years. Only if Labour fully commit to Proportional Representation would I consider voting for them, as I feel all majority Government over the years has been to detriment of the British people.

Just out of interest which system of proportional representation would you advocate. Remember we had a referendum on the subject not so very long ago and the chosen system didn’t seem to impress the voters at all.

The 2011 referendum was not about PR; it was a choice between FPTP (used by 1 other country) and AV (used by 3 countries), neither of which are proportional. Personally, I would prefer the party list system, where representation is directly related to the proportion of votes cast.

The trouble with the party list system is that some awful politicians would float to the top. Just look at the present selection of Tory Ministers who presumably represent the best that Party can find.

So, if people reduce the number of hours that they work then surely their employers would need another worker?

Not necessarily so, usually the worker is expected to do the same work as before but be more productive. There is considerable evidence to support this belief. here is one example www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220711-the-case-for-a-six-hour-workday

Some years ago I spoke to someone who had set up a successful business. he told me how in the early years he had worked all the hours God sent, but after 3 years his family got restve because they never saw him, so he decided to cut his hours down to 8 a day and be home weekends, for a short period - and was amazed to discover that his work rate went up, because he was not permanently tired and worn down by the relentless pressure of the job. 8 hour days and no weekends became the norm.

Four day weeks have been trialled, with some success - but it’s not possible for everyone.

Germanshepherdsmum

Four day weeks have been trialled, with some success - but it’s not possible for everyone.

Indeed.

Some tasks needs to be accomplished daily, or do here.

There is also something to be said with having work to fill ones time at least 8-10 hours a day plus commute. Devil, idle hands comes to mind.

Grantanow

The trouble with the party list system is that some awful politicians would float to the top. Just look at the present selection of Tory Ministers who presumably represent the best that Party can find.

Alternatively, it may encourage a higher of candidate, with some life experience, instead of the 'career politicians' predominating today. Are you suggesting that FPTP doesn't result in 'some awful politicians'?

Sorry - higher level of candidate

Well, of course shortening hours and looking for higher productivity does not suit every occupation or every worler.

But the original discussion was the extent that people would choose to cut back working hours to avoid penal tax rates on their income.

Shorter hours does not necessarily mean 4 day weeks or companies being open less. A 4 day week can work perfectly well on a 24/7 rota.

The arguments being made against shorter hours for most people are very similar to those made by factory owners in the 19th century when the Factory Acts wee passed. How having children working less than 10 hours a day would affect output and profitability. They said the same when the hours were reduced further and again when the minimum wage was introduced.

Even at the current highest rate of tax, you keep a fair amount of your salary. It’s not as if we have the 90% rate of years ago - if we did I could understand people deciding not to take a promotion if it took them into that bracket. Currently we are talking about the difference between 20% and 40%, 40% and 45% and 45% and 50%. If someone is serious about their career they will take a promotion. It may not be offered again.

In my job, shorter hours was a total impossibility, as is the case for my son and daughter in law now. If you work with people in different time zones you accommodate their hours, not yours.

I agree GSM but other posters on this thread have been suggesting much higher rates.

Germanshepherdsmum

Even at the current highest rate of tax, you keep a fair amount of your salary. It’s not as if we have the 90% rate of years ago - if we did I could understand people deciding not to take a promotion if it took them into that bracket. Currently we are talking about the difference between 20% and 40%, 40% and 45% and 45% and 50%. If someone is serious about their career they will take a promotion. It may not be offered again.

In my job, shorter hours was a total impossibility, as is the case for my son and daughter in law now. If you work with people in different time zones you accommodate their hours, not yours.

Precisely.

My (uneducated) proposal was easy. Fairer at the bottom and middle. I allowed for a mere 5% on top of the 45% and raised all the bands considerably. Nobody was to be impacted apart from actual high earners:

It seems to me changing the bands and adding to the top band would yield the government and lower income people more spendable money.

Here's my proposal again:

Up to £20,000 -- 0% [good!!!]
£20,000 to £70,000 -- 20% [good!!!]
£70,000 to £170,00 -- 40% [good!!!]
over £170,000 -- 50% [nice for tax revenues]

M0nica

I agree GSM but other posters on this thread have been suggesting much higher rates.

That’s probably because they haven’t paid tax at 45% or 50% and want to hear the pips squeak. I have and I don’t. Many people paying higher rate taxes employ others - it’s no picnic.

Germanshepherdsmum

M0nica

I agree GSM but other posters on this thread have been suggesting much higher rates.

That’s probably because they haven’t paid tax at 45% or 50% and want to hear the pips squeak. I have and I don’t. Many people paying higher rate taxes employ others - it’s no picnic.

Actually, GSM, I believe I suggested highest at just 50%.

Nobody suggested 'take money from your pocket' rates, that I've read.

MaizieD

fancythat

winterwhite

OP, please tell us where you would "quite happily make many cuts in the current tory budget".

In a GE it's common to judge the outgoing government on its record and opposition parties on their manifestos. I don't think it's enough to snuffle through opposition policies picking holes. What is about the tory party's record that impresses people so much?

Apart from what I wrote in the op

I would cut 10% of spending across all categories
apart from education, local government, policing and possibly defenece.

Then start again from there.

Why would you do that when every area you propose to cut funding from is falling apart because of underfunding?

This is where I get confused. It seems to me cuts to spending would be bad, taxes as income need to go up. The NHS is on it's knees, etc etc..

And, to me, a far worse idea is jiggering with IHT - who wants to pay that? Leave already taxed (in so many ways) money alone.

I have always voted Conservative but realise Labour will win at the next Election. Whenever I ask questions of the Socialists on GN I rarely get an answer. So I will try again.

How will Sir Keir and co deal with the thousands of boat people who arrive on our shores?

If Labour build new towns, which has been mentioned,where will they find doctors, nurses, dentists ?

If Sir Keir thinks 1% of women have a penis, where will he stand on Women’s Rights ?

I want to know some hard facts of what Labour will do in power, not just criticism of the conservatives.

NanKate

I have always voted Conservative but realise Labour will win at the next Election. Whenever I ask questions of the Socialists on GN I rarely get an answer. So I will try again.

How will Sir Keir and co deal with the thousands of boat people who arrive on our shores?

If Labour build new towns, which has been mentioned,where will they find doctors, nurses, dentists ?

If Sir Keir thinks 1% of women have a penis, where will he stand on Women’s Rights ?

I want to know some hard facts of what Labour will do in power, not just criticism of the conservatives.

You could start by reading what was said by the key speakers at the Labour conference NanKate, and the Labour Party website that will answer the majority of your very broad questions. The information is available.

Having read the posts from the far-left on another thread and the far-right on here I can only say "a plague on both your houses".

I watched a programme with Simon Reeves last night (a few years old I think) He was traveling through Turkey and visited refugee camps near the border with Syria. At that time Turkey had housed 3 million refugees and their camps were more like small towns, with proper housing, running water and sewage and electricity. Each camp had two super markets and doctors with a small hospital and schools. They even had a school for adults to learn Turkish.

Current estimates for Syrian refugees are between 3.4 and 4 million. President Erdogan has an agenda and many of the refugees find work in Turkey and many would like to return to Syria. Nevertheless, Turkey is an example to all.

Brits complain about the few thousands that are taken in and who are kept in poor conditions, in a sort of limbo. The UK has an aging population and needs additional people, if for no other reason than to work in care homes and hospitals.

So, to answer NanKate's question there will no doubt be some doctors and nurses amongst those refugees.